User talk:Blottbott

Say what you gotta say here:
--Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 23:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Please stop adding your signature to articles; signatures are for Talk pages only.
 * 2) Before creating any more articles, please read WP:Notability, and some of the links in the Welcome notice above. --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 23:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Every edit you make not only introduces material and other changes for which you offer no sources, but introduces formatting errors (for example, changing properly to improperly formatted citations). Why?

Also, what is your relationship to Ian Protheroe? --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 13:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks or that contribution, Mel. I'll keep it in mind. Please not my comments on your talk page. Blottbott 10:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The links that you gave (which didn't cover all the changes that you made) didn't, at least in the cases that I checked, support your edits.

For example, "Protheroe broke with Cheung in the early 1990s and has been pursuing the development of his own branch of Wing Chun which he calls Classical Wing Chun kung Fu" (leaving aside what I take to be miscapitalisation) isn't backed up by this or this; indeed, the sources contradict it, referring instead simply to "Classical Wing Chun" in their titles, and to "Chung Chi Wing Chun Kuen" in the text. He refers to a traditional/classical system at certain points. Nowhere does he suggest that this classical system is of his own devising (which, in any case, would be a most peculiar claim); he says, rather, that he calls his system "Chung Chi Wing Chun Kuen" (which makes sense, given that "Chung Chi" is his name). You go on to say that he "also sometimes" uses this name for his system", but this is at best misleading.

Your edits also involved other minor errors (such as "his long-timestudent"), but it was the failure of the sources to back up your edits that was why I reverted. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Mel, I quote from my source site:

"Upon further investigation and meetings with Aikido Sensei I realized that I had developed a circular and more internal method in my approach to Wing Chun based on energy flow and biomechanics rather than the copying of a specific style. This was quite a revelation for me and from that moment I looked at my "style" from a different perspective." from http://www.wingchun-kungfu.com.au/schools/chungchi.shtml

Protheroe's teacher taught (and teaches) Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu (his teacher was William Cheung). Protheroe, on the other hand, has developed his own style which he calls Classical Wing Chun Kung Fu.

I agree that the other source was a little light, but the solution is to send a message, or do what many others do and insert a citation needed tag. As I said on your talk page, then I can fix it and we're both working together. For more info on this topic, check out delegation. That sounds nasty, but you obviously don't understand the concept, so you should read the Wiki on it. Blottbott 06:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on Mel Etitis' Talk page
Thank You Blottbott for conveying so well what I have been trying to say for a few days now. The problem is that there is information that is unsourced that is 100% valid. This information may be out there but it may be difficult to find and/or to provide. My problem was with someone who removed what I added, simply because he thought it wasn't true. He then got rude with me and told me not to rearrange things or to add information to a discography. This was not only rude, but presumes that only certain individuals are allowed or qualified to make any additions or edits. When it was suggested that he was going to be reported, I was contacted by Mel etitis and basically told because I was new, that my concerns were not important and that this other contributor did nothing wrong. What I was adding was not life altering, it didn't threaten anyone. This individual did not request the source material I posted, he just deleted what I added. And then I am told he did nothing wrong even though the rules say that reverting is not proper and that source material should be requested. I simply think the problem is that we have a few individuals here that seem to think they know it all and that anything anyone else has to offer is unworthy. This speaks to an arrogance that is unnecessary at Wiki-pedia. The idea is to inform and educate by allowing people from various backgrounds to add information. If this is not going to be allowed to be done because of the arrogance of a few people, then Wiki-pedia should shut down. I have found a lot of useful information here. Information posted and edited by people who may or may not have more education than I. I do not care how educated any contributor is. We all have areas that we know a lot about, and other areas we know nothing about. Yes Mel, Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't necessarily mean they aren't listening. But it is a good indicator. It's important that some sign be given that shows that they understand your concerns and issues should be made. When they fail to do this people are left with the conclusion that no one is listening. That IS the way it works. Believe me, I am a manager and am required to work customer service daily. If I don't listen and make sure I understand what their concern are, and try to resolve the problem, major problems occur. People leave and they never come back and unfortunately spread bad word of mouth about the business. It is called Customer Service! Something sorely lacking here. Thank You for your input BlottBott. It proves that when I said no one is listening, I was correct as I see you aren't being listened to either. Thanks for your time. I posted this on his page as well. MoovieStarz 15:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message
And you've checked each case, I assume; in what percentage was my action was wrong? If you insist on leaving your overlong criticism on my Talk page, I'd appreciate it if you'd at least take the time to do the research necessary to back it up. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 20:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked? In what percentage was your action right? Read your talk pages. I still maintain that at the rate you work that you don't have time to think. You're making the assumption that you know best all too often. Blottbott 02:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. of course I've checked; I made the edits in question. Are you thinking about what you're writing, or just saying whatever comes into your head so long as it's negative? --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 09:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)